Should libel, slander, or defamation laws be ‘loosened up’ to protect public figures?

No. This shouldn’t even be discussed as an issue by politicians, particularly a President, and definitely one who claims to be conservative. Even most leftists have accepted that 1st Amendment rights should be protected, though their motives for believing this are often to protect their own agenda.

Of all the rights given to us by the Constitution and the amendments, freedom of the press is arguably the closest to being perfect. The basic framework laid out by the 1st Amendment led to dozens of court decisions that have honed the proper level of protections. For example, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 declared that a public figure acting as a plaintiff has the burden of proving a publisher acted with “actual malice.” This means that if the press publishes something that is demonstrated to be false, they are only liable if there was intent to hurt a public figure as the motivation for making the claims.

On the surface, this might seem very unfair. A publication can publish false information as long as doing so was not intended specifically to harm a public figure. Before we charge in and declare that only facts are allowed to be published and the burden should be on the press to be infallible, we must look at the consequences of such a stance. It would yield an impotent press, one that will avoid reporting negatively about public figures even if they are nearly certain they have their facts straight.

Extrapolate it out further. When the press exists in a state of fear, their natural recourse will be to seek protections outside of the Constitution. It will become more prudent and profitable to work with the government. Over time, it will become more prudent and profitable to work within the government. The press in all of its honorable and dishonorable forms, must remain an outside entity. That doesn’t mean that it will be unbiased. Conservatives are well aware of the challenges we face with mainstream media bias. However, fear of bias or acceptance of further degradation of their abilities to report will lead us down the road towards state-run media.

As with most issues, the knee-jerk reactions are rarely the correct ones. The restraints that are currently placed on the American press are as close to perfect as we can expect. That’s not to say they won’t need to be improved in the future; Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox in 2014 extended the rules, rights, and restrictions of bloggers to be counted as journalists. As technology and society changes, more circumstances will need to be addressed, but any action to remove or restrict the rights of the 4th and 5th estates must be fought, not embraced.

Is fake news bad? Yes. Which is why we fight it as a news outlet every day. But it cannot be made illegal. Doing so will make matters much worse. We must defend the whole Constitution, even the parts that are inconvenient.

U.S. poverty falls to lowest level since 2007 and media’s response is downright comical

Did you hear that the poverty level fell below where it was prior to the economic collapse twelve years ago? Probably not, because legacy media doesn’t want you to hear about that. They don’t want you to realize the economy is in better shape than it’s been in decades. They don’t want you to look at your paycheck and bank account and realize you’re doing better now than you’ve done in a long time, perhaps ever.

They don’t want you to know this because if you realize you’re doing better, you’re more likely to acknowledge much of this is due to President Trump’s first term in the White House. If you reach the conclusion that your personal prosperity and the prosperity of those around you is better than it was before, you will be more inclined to vote for President Trump and other Republicans in the 2020 election. The media and their cronies in the Democratic Party can’t have that, so they bury stories like these.

But even when they report it, they do so in a way that is so biased, so hilariously tilted, one might read a story about how poverty is now low and come out of it thinking the economy is tanking as we speak. That’s how radically unhinged the reports have been, taking reality and attempting to morph it into their own version that paints a much grimmer picture.

This article from NPR starts off basically saying things are bad even though they’re good. It’s pure doublethink as part of their (attempted) Orwellian control over the collective consciousness of this nation.

The U.S. poverty rate declined slightly last year, but finally fell below the 2007 level, right before the Great Recession pushed millions of Americans out of work and into financial distress.

The improving economy was a key factor in the decline. The U.S. Census Bureau noted in its annual report on income and poverty that there were 2.3 million more full-time, year-round workers last year and that median earnings for all such workers rose by more than three percent.

Amid these positive signs, the bureau reported separately that the number of people in the U.S. who did not have health insurance rose from 25.6 million people in 2017 to 27.5 million in 2018. That included 4.3 million children. Health advocacy groups called the increase extremely troubling and blamed declines in Medicaid coverage, especially for Hispanic children and children under the age of six.

Even when reporting great news for Americans, mainstream media does everything in its power to convince people it’s all just awful. “You’re not really prospering,” they’ll tell you. They torture the numbers until they say what they want them to say.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

What would happen if we applied ‘red flag’ laws to other Constitutional rights?

Leftists would love SWATing gun owners. How would they react to these being applied to their basic human rights?

Several months ago, Colion Noir had the media’s collective knickers in a twist over a video asking whether we should apply the same standards to other constitutional liberties as we apply to the Second Amendment. For some, certain civil rights are sacrosanct, while others can be tossed away without a second thought. The fact is they are all vitally important to the conservation of liberty.

A column on the same subject admonished the national socialist media for perpetuating Media Contagion forwarding the idea that they need to stop selectively glorifying these killers. He followed it up with this:

You can still report on the shootings … we just need reasonable laws that place limitations on the glory and fame you give to these killers and their twisted motivations…

You know that feeling of anxiety that shot through your body when I said the government should pass laws to limit the media’s ability to exercise their First Amendment right.

That’s the same feeling gun owners get when they hear people say the same thing about the Second Amendment. Hearing me advocate for the government’s ability to limit anyone’s First Amendment rights, including the media, should anger all of you watching this video, the same way it should anger you when anyone tries to use the same limitations on the Second Amendment.

Making the point that everyone should have the same exact reaction whenever someone talks about ‘common sense’ limitations on liberty, whether it’s about the 2nd amendment or any other parts of the bill of rights.

He finished the video with this statement:

I honestly believe ignoring shooters and not giving them any attention will do more to stop school shootings than any gun control measure ever will.

However, I vehemently disagree with the government infringing on the media’s First Amendment rights the same way I don’t believe the government should infringe on anyone’s Second Amendment rights.

The solution to the problem we all want to solve will only come with a firm commitment to all of our rights—not just the ones you think are important.

[Emphasis added]

The national socialist media lost their collective minds since they neglected to watch that in it’s entirety, as detailed in the follow up video:

The point in all of this is that if they became incensed at the destruction of one civil liberty, why don’t they have the same reaction to the destruction of all the others?

What do you consider to be the least important liberty?

Consider the following thought experiment, how would the national socialist media react to blatant prior restraint controls over their content with a 1st Amendment version of ‘red flag’ gun confiscation SWATing? Granted, we’re in the business ourselves, so we would vehemently oppose such a draconian measure.

Would the other parts of the nation’s press have the same lack of concern for such a step as they have with so-called ‘red flag’ laws for the 2nd amendment? The national socialist media is clearly pushing for these draconian laws while they layer on a syrupy coating of Orwellian doublespeak.

These laws clearly entail the taking of one’s means of self-defense with a pre-dawn no-knock raid from a SWAT team. If the members of one’s household survive this assault, the owner of said private property can look forward to months of court appearances and legal costs to prove themselves innocent after essentially being deemed guilty. Never mind the irreparable damage to one’s reputation as being the subject of such a raid in the middle of the night.

But for the denizens’ of the nation’s socialist media this is merely a move to ‘temporarily’ remove the firearms of someone in crisis or similarly sugar coated language. This being exemplified by the description of these in an AP article pushing for ‘a strong red flag law that would allow courts to issue life-saving extreme risk protection orders.’ The bias against the inalienable human right of self-defense is palpable here, but would they approach an equivalent measure that impacts their civil liberties with the same lack of concern?

How would the national socialist media write a story in which the debate was over ‘temporarily’ taking away their rights? Would they consider it ‘progress’ to have anyone issue an anonymous charge and shut down their operations for a year or more?

How would the bird-cage liner of record react to a SWAT team swarming the offices of the New York Times, USA Today, Denver Post or Chicago Tribune to shut them down over a spurious complaint that they were a ‘danger?

The New York Times enthusiastically celebrated a mass murderer Mao Zedong as “one of history’s great revolutionary figures.” It should also be noted the attitude of mass murderer Mao towards firearms: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Nothing gums up the works of a system to mass murder millions like a few thousand peasants with ‘weapons of war’. However, in their wondrous Utopia, government is always a benevolent father, never the source of oppression. The true danger arises from inanimate objects such as AK-47’s and airplanes that ‘take aim’ at people without human intervention.

What if someone decided such talk was subversive and anonymously filed for a ‘red flag’ to have the courts issue a ‘life-saving extreme risk protection order’ to shut them down for several months or years? Whereby they would have to prove they weren’t a danger?

The bottom line: This is just a thought experiment, we are not advocating this step.

Keep in mind this is just a thought experiment, we are not advocating these actions, nor are we trying to give the authoritarians any more ideas than they already have. The point is that all of the civil liberties in the bill of rights are equally important and that shifting these ideas over to a different right should give pause to those advocating these draconian actions.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Should the government have control over its own constraints?

A video from The Blaze examines the cautionary tale of some of the after effects of the Sep 11, 2001 attacks.

In examining the lessons learned from 9/11, Glenn Beck expresses a common sense refrain in response to demands from the left for more restraints on our liberty: No more, you get nothing.

Pro-liberty patriots have had enough, we are down to the bedrock of freedom, there are no more ‘compromises’ to be offered. The national socialist left wants a complete and unconditional surrender of our inalienable human rights with gun confiscation. To use the parlance of the day, you are either with liberty or you are not. The authoritarians on the left are clearly against liberty, with their pushing of evermore-strident measures against freedom.

Questions leftists can’t answer.

Over the years, we’ve developed a number of questions that our comrades on the national socialist left cannot answer. Think of these a series of political koans, which show their contradictional belief and deception in stark relief. The headline is one of the primary versions of these questions that exposes their totalitarian mindset on basic human rights.

Should the government have control over it’s own constraints?

Why do most shootings take place in liberty-free zones [ ‘gun free’ zones]?

Do you have the common sense inalienable human right of armed self-defense?

If socialism is so wonderful, why does it have to be imposed at the point of a gun?

How are new laws supposed to control people who by definition do not obey the law in the first place?

Where does the government obtain the authority to control your property with ‘universal’ background checks?

Leftists cannot answer the question on the constraint of government because that would make no sense in the context of limited government. Saying no eviscerates the rationale for registration or licensing the inalienable human right of self-defense since that would require permission from the government to hold these basic human rights. The other questions destroy the ludicrous idea of ‘gun free’ zones as well as more restraints on liberty.

The bottom-line.

The bill of rights is meant to be constraints on governmental power; that the left abhors these inalienable human rights shows they prefer an unlimited government. That is the dirty little secret of why they obsess over gun confiscation. They don’t care about ‘the children’ or ‘safety’, were that the case they would take steps to fix the problems with cultural rot and media contagion that they have caused. The national socialist left obsesses over gun confiscation because it would yield them more power and they have no other solutions. At least, none that don’t point directly at their culpability in causing societal violence.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.